A good thoughtful discussion of the issues. But don't hold your breath waiting for definitive empirical research on whether occasional mild smacking by parents will contribute to future behaviour problems or exemplary citizenship.
Long ago on of my revered teachers, Prof Bill Kessen, used to advocate three rules for smacking children. 1. Only on the soft part of the bum 2. Only with the palm of one's hand and never with an implement 3. Only in self defence. I took it as very practical advice as a parent.

I agree, we need some balance put into smacking debate in both Australia and New Zealand, as it is a hot topic downunder for many concerned and caring parents. I detest violence against children in any shape or form . I am the father of twin boys and two girls and I believe all this fuss about smacking or spanking is a huge smoke screen puffed up by radical feminist’s hell bent on destroying the moral backbone of society. Good parents already know how to correctly manage balanced discipline with common sense judgement. Decent loving and caring parents do not - have to live in fear that authorities will uplift the children if somebody of a vindictive nature alleges smacking is a child assault. It is yet another lever for the radical feminist’s to put another nail in the coffin of the paternal side of the agenda bias family equation. In New Zealand we have tabled government legislation regarding anti - smacking and I can assure you it will create grey area law which will be seriously detrimental to fathers, mothers and children. Police and lawyers are confused to why there is a need for Parliament to insist on a rushed law change. There are already ample laws to protect the children, but no, the kiwi radical feminist’s social engineer brigade wants to demonize all parents and incarcerate all fathers. The feminist collectivists collude to promote and inflict their will upon the populace, however is it not in the child’s best interests to be taught guidelines and boundaries by a mum and dad without the fear of being stereotyped as a supporter of pro violence. The radical feminists have been eroding away parental authority and I think these are the same people who throw hysteria adult tantrums, while struggling to push a huge ism up mount utopia ?

Some kids just must be smacked some parents desperately need to be smacked more often than the kids.

Mirko, I liked most of what you had to say. The basic premise is a good one (and applies to a lot of debates) - cut the extreme representations of the debate and focus on reality.

My initial impression is that I do differ on one point which stuck out to me

"If the research shows that children who are subjected to mild levels of smacking do not disproportionately experience psychological or behavioural problems, then smacking should remain permissible."

I would hope that children who are smacked exhibit lower levels of psychological or behaviouar problems than children who are disciplined without smacking otherwise smacking would appear to be unnecessary and therefore abusive.

That is more simplistic than my actual stance on the issue - the studies would somehow have to account for the temperment of the children (are parents of harder to manage children more likely to smack than parents of compliant children?) and the ability of the parents to manage other more involved forms of discipline. There are some complex issues in there which are not easily measured or weighted.

As I've suggested elsewhere we should be working to equip parents (and others) with a toolkit of discipline strategies which meets the needs of reinforcing appropriate boundaries for children. Rather than taking a tool away from parents we need to be giving them access to a wide range of appropriate tools.

The focus on smacking while paying little attention to emotional abuse (as a form of discipline) or the abuse resulting from failure to discipline appears misplaced. The focus on smacking if not balanced by information about alternative strategies also seems misplaced.

R0bert

It is not widely known that Dr Benjamin Spock, after a lifetime of lecturing parents on the evils of smacking, examined the kind of people his own children turned into and retracted everything he had said before. But I understand that by that time he was no longer writing prolifically and the record, as far as published works goes is, half a dozen enduring anti-smacking texts and some brief news items that went out with the veggie peels.

My own children have been smacked, but having been smacked once or twice have never needed it since. My nephew, on the other hand, has never been smacked and he is the most repulsive little twerp on the planet. My own children understood very clearly by age 4 that it is not appropriate to dong anyone on the head with a hard object. The little $hitbag was still doing it at age 11 and had come to learn that the only consequence of such action was the need to provide prolific excuses, lengthy negotiations and, perhaps, a feigned apology.

The focus of the research should not be limited to the behaviour of those who have been smacked. The more pressing need is to examine the violent and unconstrained behaviour, and the manipulative and disassociative behaviour of children who have never been smacked. They are nothing but scum in-waiting.

Perhaps the form punishment takes is less important than that it happens at all. Children need a warning, then if they persist in bad behaviour the consequences they were warned about should take place forthwith.

So my ideal "discipline procedure" is something like this:

1) Child performs an unacceptable act (eg big brother snatches toy from little sister)

2) Child is given a warning (eg "if you snatch a toy from your sister again you will be sent to the naughty corner")

3) Child does it again

4) Child is given exactly the punishment they were threatened with (big brother is sent to the naughty corner).

Whether it is a smack on the bottom or the naughty corner (of Supernanny fame), is probably less important than the pattern of action -> warning -> repeat of action -> consequence.

Cheers!

Hooray for Perseus :) !! well said cobber.. "little twerp"..I luv it.

Rhys.. exactly..

1/ Warning

I'll add "time limit"

My approach was "1.....2.....3" They KNEW what would come if they didn't stop doing the 'evil' they were perpetrating or start doing the good they were not doing and up till around 4 should be very adequate for them to not need any further such discipline, which can then take on the noble nature of 'psychological abuse and torture' :) Placing them in 'the hole' for a time. (goto your room and think about what you did)
Or.. denial of cherished activities. It doesn't matter how you cut the cake,- discipline of a 'negative' nature is either physical violence or psychological violence.(to the cynical)

I found it a pattern, that the more you were willing to 'reason and negotiate' the longer and more protracted the issue became and it was firmly believed by the kids that they actually could get away with it, by dragging it on till you gave up.

Assuming positive re-inforcement alone will produce little and then big angels is more an exercise in denial and utopian optimism than reality.
Spock.. yes, his final words are far more important than his lifetime of woffle.

Sadly, the most viciforous people in the anti smacking brigade are probably those who managed to succeed in a non smacking (but psychological abuse) regime with their kids while 1000s of others found it just didn't work. But then.. they will probably be treated like the person who did not receive healing from the Faith healer "Oh.. you just didn't have enough faith, or.. there was some sin in your heart"

OR..they might be a pack of sad, childless losers who suddenly found a cause celebre' for their otherwise meaningless and powerless lives !

CONCLUSON. Discipline, whether corporal or psychological, should be based on and administered in love, and have clearly defined boundaries/warnings prior to it coming down on the kid. The wisdom to know which to use and when is the challenge.

You raise a very interesting point, Boaz David. I wonder what proportion of the anti-smacking brigade don't actually have kids of their own? This whole campaign has the unmistakebale stench of day trippers seeking cheap thrills at someone else's expense.

The issue is not one of whether the same behavioural outcome can be achieved by negotiation or not. Smacking is all about children comprehending that their actions can induce a response in others. And when they discover that it is possible to act so badly that the person who loves them more than anyone else in the world feels the need to smack them they rarely need to explore that behaviour again.

And on the scale of the misdeads done to kids these days, smacking is a 9th order issue. Far more severe and enduring damage is done by vindictive mothers who indulge their own vendettas after divorce by demonising and ultimately excluding all fatherly input. Do they seriously think they are doing their kids a favour by denying them any opportunity to see both sides of the story?

Do they seriously think they can abuse the legal system to humiliate the father of her children and not cause serious long-term harm, especially to young boys?

But you can be certain the sisterhood won't be in a hurry to do proper comparative studies on that one.

Perseus is right on stating ; "But you can be certain the sisterhood won't be in a hurry to do proper comparative studies on that one."

The unbalanced studies and absence of comparative studies reflect the many men who are now sad disgruntled litigants and ex clients of the Kangaroo Court . It is a sad indictment that society does not endorse the paternal side of the family, as it would help boys with self esteem levels.
The sisterhood ideologically driven law wants to use the anti smacking saga to further erode parental rights, because it is a policy platform of domestic/academic science that can implement its unfair mandate through a messianic social work agency . This is a frightening prospect to the majority of parents .

I'm currently writing my major university journalism assginment on this topic. I have found it of great interest and debate. The question of whether or not to smack children has been around for years, but is it a parental or governmental right to regulate?

Many believe this type of parental control could lead to further restrictions. Do you think this could be the start of a new ‘trend’ in governments?

And will a tax-payer funded campaign or NZ bill really benefit children, or could it end up leaving them run wild?

I've been thinking about a collective approach to smacking some adults. Any one wanna do a paper on that little gem. Smack a few adults and maybe we wouldn't need to smack a few of the kids. Once a year. The Annual Smacking Day. Where your free to just walk up and give someone a good clip back of the head and then explain to them why they were chosen. :-)

Annual smacking day - I could see a number of people taking great pleasure in that one!! I can think of a number of people that would benefit from slightly reddened buttocks...

BD, I dont believe in a 1,2,3 approach. Your kids should stop/start doing whatever as soon as they are asked. What happens when there is an outright dangerous situation, without the time to count to 3.

Smacking is ideally to be used at a time when children are difficult to reason with. Eg a toddler. It should then be phased out as the child gets older and can respond to other forms of discipline.

Of course, too much smacking is counter-productive. Anyone who has a "spirited" child can tell you that. Watching a childs response will give a good indication of whether or not smacking is effective. I worked out when my child wasnt responding when she started to smack the thing she wasnt supposed to be doing when asked to stop it. Eg smacking the tv screen when told not to touch it. So smacking is now confined to pretty dire situations, like when I get bitten (this toddlers favourite trick when being lifted up to do something she doesnt want to do is biting the soft part of your shoulder).

In publishing his best seller, Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care(1946), Benjamin Spock eased the anxiety of mothers eager to provide a proper, an informed, a latest-word on childrearing. I was two when this book was published and, while not a baby-boomer in the strict sense of the word--not born during the postwar "baby boom”--my mother was certainly influenced by Spock’s ideas as were generations after WW2. The book sold 50 million copies and, after the Bible, was the biggest selling book in the USA. The westernizing world needed a more flexible, trusting and individual approach to child-rearing and life—and the growing Baha’i community which I have been a part of for over 50 years---with its continuous need for pioneers who would leave their homes for strange--for other—lands and who would be required to work in and with groups—needed this type of person as well. Spock came along just in time—or so I like to think.

I am writing this prose-poem, not so much about Dr. Spock, but about my mother’s child-rearing practice, influenced as it was by this influential paediatrician and my early childhood, pre-school, experience. She spanked me once, found it of my use; gave me to my father who spanked me once and put the dfear of God in my soul. Before Spock, John B. Watson, a no-nonsense, no kissing, no hugging, no-sit-on-lap type of child-rearing chap held sway. Spock put some feeling and flexibility back into the process of child-rearing. "Trust your instincts," was Spock's advise. We are drowning in advice now.

Just before I left the classroom as a full-time teacher in 1999 and with a crucial stage in the parenting role also about to end with one year to go before my last child graduated from university, Dr. Spock died. He was 94. He had been around all my life: as a child, an adolescent, an adult, a parent, as a teacher and as a Baha'i. He seemed to deserve a place in my prose-poetry, whether one is a spanker or a non-spanker. –Ron Price, Pioneering Over Four Epochs, 11 June 2007.

There's a few people missing the point on anti-smacking and why. You see, it shouldn't be about what's good for the parents.

Giving the wife a smack to guide her through a disobedient moment is an acceptable, and religion endorsed method of appropriate family behaviour to 1,000,000,000 people around the world. Yet it is abhorrent to most of us in the West. Personally, I don't hit my kids or any other members of my family. Nor do I hit horses or dogs. This is not because of a collaboration with the Lesbian collective or a sneaky political agenda to castrate men. It's because it doesn't achieve the best outcome for my kids.

In my view, parents hit children because they were hit by their parents. Frankly, they're just being lazy. Now, more than ever we have access to better information than our parents had and we can learn better strategies for dealing with our children's behaviour. Our job, as parents, is to deliver our children to adulthood with all the tools they need to be a good person. By teaching them that the way to resolve a problem or influence an outcome is to use physical force is just setting them up for failure.

Using examples of parents who fail to raise 'good' kids without smacking is not a reason to hit your children any more than taking up smoking because of the mythical 94 year old who chain-smoked since he was 9.

Last week a young mother said to me "I was smacked as a child and I turned out fine". I said "Are you kidding, you HIT children, what's fine about that? my father hit my mother regularly and she turned out fine too, so it's OK then?".

Evolution is hard. Do the work.

The way I understand it from Aussie's who have posted their childhood memories and the way they treat their kids now, child beating has been a national pastime for this country. Aussie's should stick with golf, rugby, surfing and football. To stop Aussie's from engaging in legalized child abuse, the government needs to put a stop to all smacking once and for all. Only a weak and cowardly person hits a child or an animal. Stop being bullies and cowards with your children and start acting like grown men and women who don't need to hit children to feel powerful.

After having read an Australian Womans (NSW)account of her childhood smackings from her parents, I have not been able to hear or see anything about Australia without getting sick to my stomach. To think that parents down under willingly leave marks on their children as a form of discipline is a national shame for Australia. You need to change the mind-set of how you view children in your society. How did it come to be that Australians view children as small punching bags for parents?
Excusing physical punishment as necessary discipline is a weak argument. What does an adult do about another adult who mis-behaves? What do you do about disabled adults? The elderly? Surely you are compassionate enough to be gentle with these people when they act out. It would reason then, that you should be gentle with your children - kindly teaching them about life without the use of violence. I must say that your treatment of children is a gross stain on your society and could eventually be a reason that people stop visiting your country.